Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010076512025 2025:GAU-AS:4592 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/837/2025 BISHNU SARKAR S/O- LATE BEJAN SARKAR, R/O- H.NO-9, PRAGATI NAGAR, UDAYAN VIHAR, SATGAON, GUWAHATI, PS SATGAON, KAMRUP M, ASSAM 2: DHANANJOY DAS S/O- TANU DAS R/O-GANDHI NAGAR JAGGANATH BASTI BASANTI BAZAR SATGAON GUWAHATI PS SATGAON KAMRUP M ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. I DAS, MS. B SARMAH,MS. M BAISHYA,MR. R DE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 10.04.2025 Heard Mr. R. De, learned counsel of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 0043/2024, under Sections 419/420 of IPC and 66D of the I.T. Act, registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Noida Commissionerate, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. De, that the petitioner No.1 is the Secretary of an NGO namely Aid India, Assam working in the field of skill and livelihood development for women, and the petitioner No.2 is the President of the said NGO. It is further submitted that neither of the petitioners has any criminal antecedents whatsoever, nor have they ever been arrested in connection with any offence or crime. However, the petitioners received a notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. dated 28.03.2025, directing them to appear before the Cyber Crime Police Station, Noida Commissionerate, on 04.04.2025 in connection with Crime No. 0043/2024. But, due to petitioner No.1 suffering from an orthopaedic problem, the petitioners were unable to appear before the Investigating Officer on 04.04.2025. They submitted an application explaining their inability to attend, which was duly accepted, and the next date for appearance has been fixed on 10.04.2025 before the aforementioned Cyber Crime Police Station. Page No.# 3/6 4. He further submits that the petitioners are no way associated with any unauthorised money transactions; rather, they themselves are victims of cybercrime. In this regard, petitioner No.1 even addressed a letter to the Branch Manager of Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Ltd., Lachit Nagar, Guwahati, stating that he was unable to operate the NGO’s account. He also wrote another letter to the Officer-in-Charge, Cyber Cell, Panbazar, Guwahati, stating that the said NGO account had been hacked by unknown persons and that he was not in a position to operate it. Furthermore, he submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to appear before the I.O of Cyber Crime, Noida, and to cooperate fully with the investigation, provided that they are granted some interim protection in the form of transit anticipatory bail. 5. In addition to his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749 [Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka & Others], wherein the Court held that the provision for transit anticipatory bail is intended to secure the liberty of the individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, provided that the person apprehending arrest makes out a case for such relief. He specifically relied on paragraphs 102 and 103 of the said judgment, which read as under: “102. At the same time, we are also mindful of the fact that the accused cannot seek full-fledged anticipatory bail in a State where he is a resident when the FIR has been registered in a different State. However, in view of what we have discussed above, he would be entitled to seek a transit anticipatory bail from the Court of Session or High Court in the State where he is a resident which necessarily has to be of a limited duration so as to seek regular anticipatory bail from the Court of competent jurisdiction. The need for such a provision is to secure the liberty of the individual concerned. Since anticipatory bail as well as transit anticipatory bail are intrinsically linked to personal liberty under Article Page No.# 4/6 21 of the Constitution of India and since we have extended the concept of access to justice to such a situation and bearing in mind Article 14 thereof it would be necessary to give a constitutional imprimatur to the evolving provision of transit anticipatory bail. Otherwise, in a deserving case, there is likelihood of denial of personal liberty as well as access to justice for, by the time the person concerned approaches the Court of competent jurisdiction to seek anticipatory bail, it may well be too late as he may be arrested. Needless to say, the Court granting transit anticipatory bail would obviously examine the degree and seriousness of the apprehension expressed by the person who seeks transit anticipatory bail; while the object underlying exercise of such jurisdiction is to thwart arbitrary police action and to protect personal liberty besides providing immediate access to justice though within a limited conspectus. 103. If a rejection of the plea for limited/transitory anticipatory bail is made solely with reference to the concept of territorial jurisdiction it would be adding a restriction to the exercise of powers under Section 438. This, in our view, would result in miscarriage and travesty of justice, aggravating the adversity of the accused who is apprehending arrest. It would also be against the principles of access to justice. We say so for the reason that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we hold that the Court of Session or the High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, if the accused apprehending arrest makes out a case for grant of anticipatory bail but having regard to the fact that the FIR has not been registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session, as the case may, at the least consider the case of the accused for grant of transit anticipatory bail which is an interim protection of limited duration till such accused approaches the competent Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory Page No.# 5/6 bail.” 6. In this context, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the allegation against the accused/petitioners pertains to unauthorized money transactions, which fall under the domain of cyber crime. Hence, at this stage, he raised an objection to the grant of pre-arrest transit bail to the accused/petitioners. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, as well as the annexures filed along with the petition and other aspects of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting the privilege of interim transit anticipatory bail to the accused/petitioners for a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of this order, enabling the petitioners to appear before the IO and approach the competent Sessions Court or the Hon’ble High Court, as the case may be, for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail or regular bail. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioner, namely, 1. Sri Bishnu Sarkar and 2. Sri Dhananjoy Das, in connection with in connection with Crime No. 0043/2024, under Sections 419/420 of IPC and 66D of the I.T. Act, registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Noida Commissionerate, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, they shall be enlarged on interim transit bail on their executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer within 15(fifteen) days; and (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any Page No.# 6/6 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 9. In terms of the above, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed and is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant